Does the statute of limitations apply to defendants who have been "lulled into a state of repose" into believing that they would never be able to pursue the issue of wiretapping in the federal context?

Strict enforcement of statutes of limitations protects defendants who have been "lulled" into a state of repose by plaintiffs who have "slept on their rights". Meyer v. Frank, supra, 550 F.2d at 730. In the instant case, however, appellants were diligent in the pursuit of their claims, having raised the federal issues in the state courts almost immediately after their discharge from the police force. By no means can they be regarded as having "slept" on their rights. Likewise, appellants did not "lull" appellee into believing that the federal issues underlying the 1983 claims would never be raised. The precise issues involving wiretap illegality that form the basis of the 1983 action were hotly contested throughout the state proceedings. ⁶ Thus, the policies traditionally served by strict enforcement of statutes of limitations will not be frustrated by tolling in this case.